AJOB Empirical Bioethics最新文献

{"title":"Informed Consent Documents from Psychedelic Clinical Trials: A Descriptive Ethical Analysis.","authors":"Katherine Cheung, Caleigh Propes, Marianna Graziosi, Kyle Patch, David B Yaden","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2526339","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2025.2526339","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Classic psychedelics, such as psilocybin and LSD, evoke certain kinds of altered states of consciousness. Specific features of the experience, such as its allegedly ineffable nature, have been discussed as posing challenges to the informed consent process. A growing call for tailored informed consent documents (ICDs) in the psychedelic bioethics literature raises the question of how closely ICDs used in contemporary psychedelic trials reflect the concrete suggestions and proposals offered by psychedelic bioethicists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this article, we review ICDs from psilocybin clinical trials in the United States. Using a content analysis approach, we provide a systematic qualitative description of the ICDs which comprise our final sample (<i>N</i> = 28; 28 clinical trials across 13 unique sites). Coders demonstrated good reliability (κ = .683).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Qualitative analyses revealed that most of the coding aligned with expectations based upon the psychedelics bioethics literature, such as the emphasis on <i>mental health risks</i> and <i>physical risks</i> in ICDs. Notably, psychedelic-specific codes (e.g., <i>ineffability, therapeutic touch)</i> did not appear as frequently in ICDs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Scholars in psychedelic bioethics have called for the inclusion of a variety of potential risks and benefits in ICDs. It will be important to continue debating which elements are worth including in ICDs such that potential research participants are presented with the most salient factors relevant to their decision about joining a study. We provide a table of best practices applied by our sample of ICDs.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144650866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Patients' Views on Paying to Participate in Clinical Trials.","authors":"Nyiramugisha Niyibizi, Tekiah McClary, Margie Dixon, April Liao, Candace D Speight, Ayannah Lang, Neal W Dickert, Rebecca D Pentz","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2526325","DOIUrl":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2526325","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical trials of medical therapies are critical for the advancement of care and are expensive. Sometimes, the costs of study drugs are not covered by insurance or the sponsor, and trial participants bear the costs. Participant costs in trials have been ethically controversial; review boards must decide whether to approve these trials and how to address costs. Because little is known about how participants view these costs, we evaluated patients' perspectives about being asked to pay for drugs in a clinical trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We interviewed 33 patients recruited from oncology and cardiology clinics. Interviews included two hypothetical scenarios of trials involving costs: (1) a randomized trial of two current medications with moderate but different out-of-pocket costs; and (2) a trial involving a more expensive investigational drug. Patients were asked to share reactions, concerns, preferences about being approached, and what should happen if removed from the trial due to safety concerns.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients expressed a variety of concerns and expectations associated with being asked to bear trial costs, as well as suggestions to reduce costs to research participants. Concerns included the study drug expense, fairness of asking research participants to bear study costs, and that disadvantaged individuals could be excluded. Despite sharing these concerns, patients prioritized autonomy in allowing patients to decide whether to participate, felt that \"pay-to-participate\" trials should be allowed to occur, and thought potential benefits from trial interventions, along with personal financial situation, would drive participation decisions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite mixed reactions about being asked to pay for study drugs, the majority of patients felt that people should not be prevented from having the option to participate and thus that these trials should not be prohibited. Continued understanding of patient views of research participation and the costs involved can guide how review boards and researchers address these trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12233191/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144561439","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Pediatric Intensivists' Perspectives on Nudging: A Multi-Institution Assessment of Ethical Permissibility.","authors":"Aliza M Olive, Asdis Finnsdottir Wagner, Ashely K Sherman, Jessica S Wallisch, Laura Miller-Smith","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2526328","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2025.2526328","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nudging is a behavioral economics concept that describes subtle influences on decisions without restricting options or altering incentives. Though commonly studied in public health, the ethical implications in pediatric critical care are underexplored. This study investigates pediatric intensivists' perspectives on the ethical permissibility of three nudging techniques-framing, saliency, and default.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a multi-center survey of pediatric intensivists in which a sample of physicians were presented with 4 clinical scenarios representing framing, saliency, and default nudges. Responses about ethical permissibility for each scenario were assessed <i>via</i> Likert Scale and free text. Physician and institutional demographics were also collected. Data was collected in REDCap and analyzed using descriptive statistics for demographic data and scenario responses, with median and interquartile ranges (IQR) reported for Likert scale variables. Comparative and correlational analyses evaluated relationships between ethical permissibility, participant characteristic, and responses to nudging techniques across the scenarios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>402 surveys were distributed with 132 (33%) completed. Results show a wide range in ethical permissibility of nudging techniques with the widest variability in the application of saliency. An equal number of physicians found negative framing to be \"not at all\" ethically permissible as \"extremely\" ethically permissible. Negative saliency showed a statistically significant positive correlation with how often the physician uses the technique, and how much that physician believes saliency affects the family's choice. There was also case-dependent variation in ethical permissibility with negative saliency found to be more ethically permissible in severe traumatic brain injury and positive saliency viewed as more ethically permissible when considering tracheostomy. Qualitatively, variable responses were given for each technique. Intensivists reported a wide range of use of nudging techniques.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study suggests there is wide variability in nudging utilization and perceived ethical permissibility. The use of framing, saliency, and default communication techniques is nuanced and further understanding of choice architecture is essential to understand how physicians can optimally engage in shared decision-making with families.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144545303","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Development and Validation of a Stakeholder-Driven, Self-Contained Electronic Informed Consent Platform for Trio-Based Genomic Research Studies.","authors":"Bethany Y Norton, James Liu, Sara A Lewis, Helen Magee, Tyler N Kruer, Rachael Dinh, Somayeh Bakhtiari, Sandra H Nordlie, Sheetal Shetty, Jennifer Heim, Yumi Nishiyama, Jorge Arango, Darcy Johnson, Lee Seabrooke, Mitchell Shub, Robert Rosenberg, Michele Shusterman, Stephen Wisniewski, Blair Cooper, Erin Rothwell, Michael C Fahey, M Wade Shrader, Nancy Lennon, Joyce Oleszek, Wendy Pierce, Hannah Fleming, Mohan Belthur, Jennifer Tinto, Garey Noritz, Laurie Glader, Kelsey Steffen, William Walker, Deborah Grenard, Bhooma Aravamuthan, Kristie Bjornson, Malin Joseph, Paul Gross, Michael C Kruer","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2497756","DOIUrl":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2497756","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Increasingly long and complex informed consents have yielded studies demonstrating comparatively low participant <i>understanding</i> and <i>satisfaction</i> with traditional face-to-face approaches. In parallel, interest in electronic consents for clinical and research genomics has steadily increased, yet limited data are available for trio-based genomic discovery studies. We describe the design, development, implementation, and validation of an electronic iConsent application for trio-based genomic research deployed to support genomic studies of cerebral palsy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>iConsent development incorporated stakeholder perspectives including researchers, patient advocates, institutional review board members, and genomic data-sharing considerations. The iConsent platform integrated principles derived from prior electronic consenting research and elements of multimedia learning theory. Participant understanding was assessed in an interactive teachback format. The iConsent application achieved nine of ten proposed desiderata for effective patient-focused electronic consenting for genomic research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, participants demonstrated high <i>understanding</i> and <i>retention</i> of key human subjects considerations. Enrollees reported high levels of <i>satisfaction</i> with the iConsent, and we found that participant <i>understanding</i>, iConsent <i>clarity</i>, <i>privacy protections</i>, and <i>study goal explanations</i> were associated with overall <i>satisfaction</i>.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although opportunities exist to optimize iConsent, we show that such an approach is feasible, can satisfy multiple stakeholder requirements, and can realize high participant <i>satisfaction</i> and <i>understanding</i> while increasing study reach.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144477064","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Should Physicians Take the Rap? Normative Analysis of Clinician Perspectives on Responsible Use of 'Black Box' AI Tools.","authors":"Ben H Lang, Kristin Kostick-Quenet, Jared N Smith, Meghan Hurley, Rita Dexter, Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2497755","DOIUrl":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2497755","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Increasing interest in deploying artificial intelligence tools in clinical contexts has raised several ethical questions of both normative and empirical interest. One such question in the literature is whether \"responsibility gaps\" (r-gaps) are created when clinicians utilize or rely on such tools for providing care, and if so, what to do about them. These gaps are particularly likely to arise when using opaque, \"black box\" AI tools. Compared to normative and legal analysis of AI-generated responsibility gaps in health care, little is known, empirically, about health care providers views on this issue. The present study examines clinician perspectives on this issue in the context of black box AI decisional support systems (BBAI-DSS) in advanced heart failure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 clinicians (14 cardiologists and 6 LVAD nurse coordinators). Interviews were transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed for salient themes. All study procedures were approved by local IRB.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that <i>all</i> clinicians voiced that, if someone were responsible for the use and outcomes of black box AI, it would be physicians. We compare clinician perspectives on the existence of r-gaps and their impact on responsibility for errors or adverse outcomes when BBAI-DSS tools are used against a taxonomy from the literature, finding some clinicians acknowledging an r-gap and others denying it or its relevance in medical decision-making.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinicians varied in their view about the existence of r-gaps but were united in their ascriptions of physician responsibility for the use of BBAI-DSS in clinical care. It was unclear at times whether these were descriptive or normative judgments (i.e., is it merely inevitable physicians will be responsible, or is it morally appropriate that they be held responsible?) or both. We discuss the likely normative inadequacy of such a conception of physician responsibility for BBAI tool use.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144042646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Survey of OB/GYN Residents Knowledge and Practice of Trauma Informed Care.","authors":"Lauren Stokes, Adriane Burgess, Paul Burcher","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2497757","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2025.2497757","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a high prevalence of a history of traumatic experiences among those seeking obstetric/gynecologic care. OB/GYN clinicians must use trauma-informed care practices to avoid re-traumatization and to provide supportive care. The objective of this study was to describe the knowledge and use of trauma-informed care practices by OB/GYN residents in the outpatient setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A descriptive research design was used. In February 2022, an email with a link to an electronic survey was sent to US OB/GYN residency program directors <i>via</i> a listserv. OB/GYN program directors were asked to forward the survey to residents in their program. The survey included closed-response questions, some of which were Likert scale, to assess the frequency of use of certain trauma-informed care practices during the provision of pelvic examinations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy US OB/GYN residents responded to the survey. Only half of residents surveyed reported that they practiced trauma-informed care and half reported either not receiving education or were not sure if they had training on the subject. Additionally, half of the respondents were unaware of the ACOG Committee Opinion 825: Care of Patients with History of Trauma.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was limited use of trauma-informed care practices among OB/GYN residents in this study. Considering the high prevalence of traumatic experiences among individuals seeking gynecologic care, a framework for trauma-informed pelvic exams should be included in the residency curriculum and applied universally.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144014337","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Representative Studies Rubric: A Tool for Diversity in Clinical Trials.","authors":"Brian Minalga, Rona Siskind, Russell Campbell, Tyler Adamson, Mary Allegra Cermak, Annet Davis, Eddie D Givens, Molly Dyer, Katie McCarthy, Nicole A Montañez, Rhonda White","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2497753","DOIUrl":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2497753","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When clinical trials fail to enroll diverse study populations, a multitude of consequences can occur, including compromised validity and generalizability, safety and efficacy uncertainties, regulatory limitations, widened disparities, distrust in science and medicine, and undermined efforts to address urgent health needs. We developed the Representative Studies Rubric (RSR), a questionnaire that evaluates the extent to which clinical trials are designed to enroll representative study populations with a focus on age, ethnicity, drug use, gender, pregnancy, race, and sex assigned at birth. We used the RSR to conduct an analysis of all active studies in the NIH-funded HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials Networks (Networks) and identified patterns of research practices that may limit the participation of underrepresented populations, with ethical implications. The Networks subsequently formalized the RSR as a required protocol development tool for all future studies to correct exclusionary research practices with the goal to achieve more representative study populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144053819","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Survey of Attitudes Toward Social Justice Obligations in the Field of Bioethics.","authors":"Danielle M Pacia, Sana S Baban, Faith E Fletcher, Zamina Mithani Aziz, Jane F Cooper, J Wesley Boyd, Ryan J Dougherty","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2474915","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2025.2474915","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> This study examines the views of bioethicists in the US and Canada on incorporating social justice into their work and the field more broadly.</p><p><p><b>Methods:</b> Through an iterative process with leaders in bioethics, we created a survey and distributed it via bioethics listservs and individual emails.</p><p><p><b>Results:</b> Ultimately, we received responses from 355 bioethicists in the US and Canada. Respondents showed strong support for integrating social justice concerns, with 80% endorsing its inclusion in bioethics and 75% believing it should be a key aim of bioethics scholarship. However, engagement with specific social justice topics varied, and perceptions about institutional support for doing so were mixed. Early-career bioethicists were more likely to support integrating social justice into bioethics.</p><p><p><b>Conclusion:</b> Our findings highlight the importance of prioritizing social justice within bioethics and underscore the need for institutional support to advance these efforts.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144053216","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Associations Between the Legalization and Implementation of Medical Aid in Dying and Suicide Rates in the United States.","authors":"Olivia P Sutton, Brent M Kious","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2024.2433474","DOIUrl":"10.1080/23294515.2024.2433474","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Some have hypothesized that changing attitudes toward medical aid in dying (MAID) contribute to increased suicide rates, perhaps by increasing interest in dying or the perceived acceptability of suicide. This would represent a strong criticism of MAID policies. We sought to evaluate the association between the legalization and implementation of MAID across the U.S. and changing suicide rates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated state-level monthly suicide death rates from 1995 to 2021. Because suicide rates vary by state, we constructed geographically-weighted regression models controlling for annualized state-level sociodemographic factors, such as racial distribution (percent Caucasian), average age, income levels, unemployment rates, rates of spiritual engagement, firearm ownership rates, gender ratios, and education levels. We applied a difference-in-difference analysis within our geographically-weighted models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>927,929 Suicide deaths were represented in the study. Ten states and the District of Columbia had legalized MAID within the study period. In an univariable analysis, states that legalized MAID differed significantly from non-MAID states with respect to mean monthly suicide rate (non-MAID States: 1.46; MAID states: 1.78; <i>p</i> < 0.0001), as well as several covariates. Monthly suicide death rates were spatially autocorrelated (Moran's <i>I</i> = 0.607, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). In separate geographically-weighted difference-in-difference analyses, changes in suicide rates were not significantly associated with MAID legalization (<i>β</i> = 0.042, <i>p</i> = 0.33) or with later MAID implementation (<i>β</i> = 0.030, <i>p</i> = 0.63), with differences in suicide rates in MAID and non-MAID states being attributable to baseline between-state differences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study failed to find evidence that suicide rates were positively associated with MAID legalization or MAID implementation, when controlling for geographic variation and multiple sociodemographic factors associated with suicide risk. This finding contrasts with other studies that have reported a positive association between suicide rates and MAID, and so calls into question one argument against MAID legalization.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"85-93"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142802599","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Enhancing Animals is \"Still Genetics\": Perspectives of Genome Scientists and Policymakers on Animal and Human Enhancement.","authors":"Rebecca L Walker, Zachary Ferguson, Logan Mitchell, Margaret Waltz","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2024.2441688","DOIUrl":"10.1080/23294515.2024.2441688","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nonhuman animals are regularly enhanced genomically with CRISPR and other gene editing tools as scientists aim at better models for biomedical research, more tractable agricultural animals, or animals that are otherwise well suited to a defined purpose. This study investigated how genome editors and policymakers perceived ethical or policy benefits and drawbacks for animal enhancement and how perceived benefits and drawbacks are alike, or differ from, those for human genome editing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified scientists through relevant literature searches as well as conference presentations. Policymakers were identified through rosters of genome editing oversight groups (e.g., International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing, World Health Organization) or efforts aimed at influencing policy (e.g., deliberative democracy groups). Interviews covered participants' views on ethical differences between interventions affecting somatic or germline cells and distinctions between using gene editing for disease treatment, prevention, and enhancement purposes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 92 participants interviewed, 81 were genome editing scientists, and 33 were policymakers, with 22 interviewees being both scientists and policymakers. Multiple areas were identified in which the ethical implications of genomic enhancements for nonhuman animals differ from those for human animals including with respect to experiential welfare; germline edits; environmental sustainability; and justice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, respondents viewed that animal enhancement is unburdened by the ethical complexities of human enhancement. These views may be related to participant perceptions of animals' lesser moral status and because germline editing in animals is common practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"94-102"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12048263/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142847861","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}